Noteworthy is how the short piece still included:
This story is important for a couple of reasons. New CF treatments are needed. Desperately. The announcement of positive results for a new mode of therapy is sure to cause great excitement among patients, providers, and investors. The cystic fibrosis gene was identified in 1989 and with the identification came the hope that the mutation could in some way be manipulated or new treatments identified. VX-770 is a step in that direction. It remains to be seen if the drug will make it to market.
More explicitly than some other stories we saw, this blog included an estimate that the drug “would command a very high price, perhaps $250,000 a year.”
Good enough. We appreciate at least the attempt to explain that the 10 percentage points improvement in lung function “is a big deal for CF patients.”
The story quotes the CF Foundation president saying there were no significant side effects. But even the press release reported some numbers for discontinuation rates and severe side effects, so we wish the blog had as well.
in just 369 words, the story did an adequate job evaluating the evidence, including the important caveat: “Now, to be perfectly clear, all we know about the latest data is from press releases.”
No disease mongering here. It was clear that this was a study in people with a specific genetic mutation that affects only about four percent of CF patients.
Includes interview with CF Foundation president – not the most independent of sources since they have funded this work – but the story appropriately notes that the foundation will receive royalties from sales if the drug makes it to market.
The story also interviewed a biotech and drug analyst.
Nothing on existing alternatives. We wish the story had included even one line as the NY Times did: “Two inhaled antibiotics and one drug that loosens mucus are approved to treat cystic fibrosis, but nothing that directly improves chloride ion transport.”
The story is clear that the drug is experimental, and that it hasn’t even been put before the FDA for review yet.
Adequate job establishing the novelty of this approach for the target population.
It admits it relied on a news release. But as we noted in our review of a competing NY Times story, while the study information is from a news release, the story did use several other sources. And, while we would normally chastise this type of reporting, we think that in this instance it is reasonable. Cystic fibrosis is a terrible disease that has defied attempts at a cure or even a satisfactory treatment. A drug that shows promise, albeit with the information dissemination coming from a press release, is newsworthy.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like